Experimental Study on the Effectiveness of Polyurethane Flexible Adhesive in Reduction of Structural Vibrations

(1)

polymers

Article

Experimental Study on the E ffectiveness of

Polyurethane Flexible Adhesive in Reduction of Structural Vibrations

Natalia Lasowicz^1,* , Arkadiusz Kwiecie ´n² and Robert Jankowski¹

1 Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Gdansk University of Technology, 80-233 Gdansk, Poland;

jankowr@pg.edu.pl

2 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Cracow University of Technology, 31-155 Cracow, Poland; akwiecie@pk.edu.pl

* Correspondence: natmajew@pg.edu.pl

Received: 26 September 2020; Accepted: 12 October 2020; Published: 15 October 2020 Abstract:The aim of the present study is to consider the idea of using polyurethane flexible adhesive in to reduce the vibrations in structures exposed to dynamic loads and evaluate their damping properties in relation to large deformations. Firstly, two aluminium cantilever beams, simulating structural elements (without and with polyurethane layer in the form of tape), were analysed, in order to check the damping of the unconstrained polymer layer. In the second stage of the study, a composite beam consisting of two aluminium flat beams bonded with polymer adhesive was considered, so as to check the damping of the constrained polymer layer. Dynamic parameters, such as modes of free vibrations, corresponding natural frequencies and damping ratios, were determined and compared.

The third stage of the investigation was aimed at solving the problem of the additional mass of the applied polymer layer, which influences the frequencies and damping of the tested structure.

A special separating procedure is proposed that makes it possible to calculate the corrected real values of the polymer layer’s damping. The results of the study clearly show that the response of the composite aluminium beam with and without polymer adhesive layer is mainly influenced by the layers’ thickness and the large strain deformation, in terms of its damping characteristics.

The use of polymer adhesive layers in constrained and unconstrained conditions leads to a significant reduction in the vibrations of tested beams, while preserving their stiffness at nearly the same level.

The applied analysis procedure made it possible for us to separate the damping properties of the analysed polymer layers and evaluate them independently with respect to the influence of integrated structural elements on damping.

Keywords: polymer adhesive; dynamic load; structural vibrations; damping ratio

1. Introduction

Excessive structural vibrations due to different dynamic loads are among the most serious and dangerous situations that can occur in the case of civil engineering structures [1–3]. Wind, earthquake or crowd load effects determine the design procedure of structures that are regularly subjected to such significant dynamic loads (see, for example, [4–6]). The excited structures are more resistant to dynamic loads when they are characterized by high ductility and damping properties. The use of composite materials in the strengthening of various kinds of structures (infilled reinforced concrete frames or masonry) is nowadays a popular approach [7–12]. Composite materials are usually bonded to the structures using stiff adhesives made of mineral mortars or epoxy resins. Such kind of stiff adhesives of brittle behaviour cause stiffening of the strengthened structures and do not introduce ductile and damping properties. Moreover, strengthening of masonry and concrete structures using composite

Polymers 2020, 12, 2364; doi:10.3390/polym12102364 www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

(2)

Polymers 2020, 12, 2364 2 of 21

systems on stiff adhesives is not fully effective because of the low strength of the substrates [13].

Stress concentrations overcome strength of the substrates generated by stiff adhesives [14]. A solution to this problem might be the use of polyurethane flexible materials, which are more compatible with masonry and concrete substrate [15,16] and ensure a high amount of ductility and deformation capacity [17].

When the induced vibrations excite a natural frequency of the affected part of the structure, resonance might occur. This may lead to severe damages or even total structural collapse [18,19].

The dynamic characteristics of structures, such as natural frequencies and damping, play important roles in dynamic response of structures, and thus various methods of determination of these characteristics are exploited. Dynamic detection methods are also used in determination of structural condition of structures, including their damage [20–22]. Anyway, the application of innovative strengthening or repair solutions in masonry or infill structures, such as composite materials externally bonded [23]

or injection filling of cracks [24], also requires increasing the structural damping. This aspect is especially important in seismic areas. Innovative solutions using dissipative viscoelastic elastomers, like PolyUrethane Flexible Joints (PUFJ) and Fibre-Reinforced PolyUrethane (FRPU) [18], manifest efficiency in structural damping, but cause problems in determination of damping properties of polymeric materials separately. Meanwhile, the damping values are required for the dynamic numerical analysis of repaired/strengthened structures, where appropriate damping properties of component materials are sought. Moreover, elastomeric materials usually show nonlinear behaviour, described by hyper elastic theory [25,26], which does not include damping, thus this parameter must be determined experimentally.

Masonry and reinforced concrete structures undergo reduction of stiffness through crack development during earthquakes, resulting in a shift in their natural frequencies [27]. The most commonly used method of vibration attenuation in the resonance range is the application of dampers so as to increase dissipation of energy during vibrations. A few types of such elements (passive, active, half-active and hybrid) are used as an effective method in reduction of structural vibrations [28].

The passive method is often used in such structures as bridges, footbridges, tall buildings, masts, towers and chimneys.

A viscoelastic damper is an example of a passive vibration reduction method [29]. This can be a viscous damper, consisting of a cylinder filled with a highly viscous liquid, in which a piston with holes moves and energy is dissipated as a result of friction between fluid particles and the piston. Another example of a passive damper is the Tuned Mass Damper—TMD (also called vibration absorber or vibration damper)—where an additional mass is attached to a specific location of a structure, so as to reduce the amplitude of vibrations to an acceptable level during dynamic excitation. This type of passive damper is used to reduce vibrations of structures such as footbridges, bridges and tall buildings [30,31]. The most famous examples of using TMD systems include the Millennium footbridge in London and the Taipei skyscraper in Taiwan.

The alternative idea of using polymer material, which has already been successfully applied for filling cracks in order to repair damaged masonry structures [27,32], was considered in this study.

The analysed polymer adhesive is a specially designed flexible two-component grout, which is based on polyurethane resin [33,34]. It has been confirmed, based on previous experimental studies (see [35,36]), that the material also has additional damping properties. Moreover, it is characterized by very good adhesion to steel and concrete and high deformability [37]. Good damping properties of polyurethane have also been confirmed during shaking table tests, in which a damaged infill specimen was protected by externally bonded composite GFRP strengthening using flexible polyurethane adhesive (FRPU) [18].

The application of this solution allowed the weakened structure to survive dynamic excitation in the range of resonance. Only damping properties of the deformable elastomeric adhesive of the FRPU protected the structure against collapse, when the tested structure manifested large displacements (up to 10 cm), generating large deformations in the elastomeric adhesive layers.

Downloaded from mostwiedzy.pl

(3)

Polymers 2020, 12, 2364 3 of 21

The numerical analysis of the tested dynamic system requires knowledge about damping properties of the flexible adhesive, and thus experiments and analysis should be focused on determining the damping of a single polyurethane layer. This problem is not easy to solve, because the influence of large strains in the deformed adhesive layer has to be taken into account. Moreover, boundary conditions applied to the elastomeric layer, as well as the thickness of the layer, are of great importance. Moreover, to make analysis as simple as possible, polymeric adhesive layers can be combined in testing with materials of well-known and stable parameters, like aluminium [26,38] or glass [39,40]. Such composite structures can be easily tested, and parameters of elastomeric layers can be determined indirectly [41].

In this paper, the results of experimental investigation, concerning the effectiveness of polymer adhesive in reduction of vibrations, are described. The experiment has been divided into two parts.

In the first stage, two aluminium cantilever beams (without and with polymer layer in the form of a tape) have been analysed. The second stage of the study focuses on five cantilever composite beams consisting of two aluminium flat bars bonded with polymer adhesive of different thickness (see also [26,38]). The specimens were forced to induce large deflections of the beams and thus large strain deformations of the polymer layers. In the analysis, changes in thickness and in shear strain were considered. Representative impact load cases, induced by using a modal hammer, are presented and described in detail in the paper. Dynamic parameters, such as modes of free vibrations, corresponding values of natural frequencies and damping ratios, were determined. Next, a detailed analysis, focused on the interpretation of the results, was carried out using the approaches described in [18,26,37].

Moreover, a new approach, separating the influence of equivalent stiffness and additional mass on damping of a polymeric layer, is also proposed. Large shear deformation and thickness of an adhesive have been investigated as factors influencing damping properties.

2. Investigation on Plain and Composite Aluminium Beams with Polymer Layer

2.1. Experimental Study—Part 1 2.1.1. Experimental Setup

The first stage of the investigation was devoted to the analysis of two aluminium cantilever beams with a total length of 965 mm, a width of 30 mm and a height of 9 mm. One of them represents a plain cantilever beam (see Figure1a), while the second one considers a beam with a polymer layer applied in the form of tape of the same width as the beam, with a total thickness of 7 mm, located on the bottom of the beam (see Figure1b).

Polymers 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21

determining the damping of a single polyurethane layer. This problem is not easy to solve, because the influence of large strains in the deformed adhesive layer has to be taken into account. Moreover, boundary conditions applied to the elastomeric layer, as well as the thickness of the layer, are of great importance. Moreover, to make analysis as simple as possible, polymeric adhesive layers can be combined in testing with materials of well-known and stable parameters, like aluminium [26,38]

or glass [39,40]. Such composite structures can be easily tested, and parameters of elastomeric layers can be determined indirectly [41].

In this paper, the results of experimental investigation, concerning the effectiveness of polymer adhesive in reduction of vibrations, are described. The experiment has been divided into two parts.

In the first stage, two aluminium cantilever beams (without and with polymer layer in the form of a tape) have been analysed. The second stage of the study focuses on five cantilever composite beams consisting of two aluminium flat bars bonded with polymer adhesive of different thickness (see also [26,38]). The specimens were forced to induce large deflections of the beams and thus large strain deformations of the polymer layers. In the analysis, changes in thickness and in shear strain were considered. Representative impact load cases, induced by using a modal hammer, are presented and described in detail in the paper. Dynamic parameters, such as modes of free vibrations, corresponding values of natural frequencies and damping ratios, were determined. Next, a detailed analysis, focused on the interpretation of the results, was carried out using the approaches described in [18,26,37]. Moreover, a new approach, separating the influence of equivalent stiffness and additional mass on damping of a polymeric layer, is also proposed. Large shear deformation and thickness of an adhesive have been investigated as factors influencing damping properties.

2. Investigation on Plain and Composite Aluminium Beams with Polymer Layer

2.1. Experimental Study—Part 1

2.1.1. Experimental Setup

The first stage of the investigation was devoted to the analysis of two aluminium cantilever beams with a total length of 965 mm, a width of 30 mm and a height of 9 mm. One of them represents a plain cantilever beam (see Figure 1a), while the second one considers a beam with a polymer layer applied in the form of tape of the same width as the beam, with a total thickness of 7 mm, located on the bottom of the beam (see Figure 1b).

(a) (b)

Figure 1. (a) Aluminium cantilever beam; (b) aluminium cantilever beam with polymer adhesive.

The study focused on determining the effectiveness of the polymer layer for reducing the structural vibrations at various levels of large strain deformation. Dynamic parameters, such as modes of free vibrations and the corresponding natural frequencies of the two aluminium cantilever beams (without and with the polymer layer) were estimated. The aluminium cantilever beams were induced to vibrate by impacts with a modal hammer applied in the middle of the elements’ length.

Figure 1.(a) Aluminium cantilever beam; (b) aluminium cantilever beam with polymer adhesive.

The study focused on determining the effectiveness of the polymer layer for reducing the structural vibrations at various levels of large strain deformation. Dynamic parameters, such as modes of free vibrations and the corresponding natural frequencies of the two aluminium cantilever beams (without and with the polymer layer) were estimated. The aluminium cantilever beams were induced to vibrate

(4)

Polymers 2020, 12, 2364 4 of 21

by impacts with a modal hammer applied in the middle of the elements’ length. Schematic diagrams of both of the analysed beams and the manner in which they were induced to vibrate are presented in Figure2. A modal hammer type PCB 086C01 (PCB Piezotronics, Inc., Depew, NY, USA), with a force that was variable over time and a maximum value of F= 15 N, was used. The total duration of each measurement was set to be equal to 12.5 s. The behaviour of the beams was observed and recorded using two accelerometers, including a triaxial one (PCB Piezotronics, Inc., Depew, NY, USA), that were installed on the metal side at the end of each beam. The response of the cantilever beams was analysed under various values of vertical load (weights with a mass ranging from 1 kg to 6 kg), applied in a distance of 30 mm from their ends (see Figure2). This applied load resulted in large deflections of the beams and their visible curvature.

Schematic diagrams of both of the analysed beams and the manner in which they were induced to vibrate are presented in Figure 2. A modal hammer type PCB 086C01 (PCB Piezotronics, Inc., Depew, NY, USA), with a force that was variable over time and a maximum value of F = 15 N, was used. The total duration of each measurement was set to be equal to 12.5 s. The behaviour of the beams was observed and recorded using two accelerometers, including a triaxial one (PCB Piezotronics, Inc., Depew, NY, USA), that were installed on the metal side at the end of each beam.

The response of the cantilever beams was analysed under various values of vertical load (weights with a mass ranging from 1 kg to 6 kg), applied in a distance of 30 mm from their ends (see Figure 2).

This applied load resulted in large deflections of the beams and their visible curvature.

Figure 2. Schematic diagrams of aluminium cantilever beams (without and with the polymer layer).

The aluminium used in this study possessed the following parameters: Young’s modulus E = 70 GPa, Poisson’s ratio  = 0.3, and mass density ρ = 2700 kg/m

³

(producer data). In the case of the polyurethane layer, which was made of Sika PSM (SIKA Poland, Cracow, Poland), the properties of the material were: Young’s modulus E = 6 MPa, Poisson’s ratio  = 0.48, mass density ρ = 1000 kg/m

³

, tensile strength R

^m

= 2.5 MPa, shear strength R

^t

= 1.2 MPa, and ultimate strain ε = 110% (producer data).

2.1.2. Experimental Results

Six repetitions of each measurement under each load case were conducted, and the mean values of the natural frequencies corresponding to the first two modes of free vibration, as well as the mean values of the damping ratios, were estimated. The results of the experimental study were determined in the form of acceleration time histories, based on which modal characteristics were obtained. Two representative acceleration time histories, describing the behaviour of the aluminium cantilever beams (without and with polymer layer) with an additional weight of 2.5 kg are presented in Figure 3a and Figure 4a, respectively. Two modes of free vibrations and the corresponding natural frequencies for each were determined using Fast Fourier analysis (see Figures 3b and 4b). Both natural frequencies observed during experimental study were analysed separately by filtering out the components with other frequencies from the measured acceleration time histories. The acceleration time histories of vibrations with the 1st natural frequency (2.1 Hz and 2.0 Hz, respectively) are presented in Figures 3c and 4c. Moreover, Figures 3d and 4d show the results of vibrations with the 2nd natural frequency (36.6 Hz and 31.93 Hz, respectively). The mean values of the natural frequencies calculated for both aluminium cantilever beams are also summarized in Table 1. The values presented there in brackets indicate the frequency change ratio with respect to the first and the second natural frequency values of the specimen loaded with an additional mass of

Figure 2.Schematic diagrams of aluminium cantilever beams (without and with the polymer layer).

The aluminium used in this study possessed the following parameters: Young’s modulus E= 70 GPa, Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.3, and mass density ρ = 2700 kg/m³(producer data). In the case of the polyurethane layer, which was made of Sika PSM (SIKA Poland, Cracow, Poland), the properties of the material were: Young’s modulus E= 6 MPa, Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.48, mass density ρ = 1000 kg/m³, tensile strength Rm= 2.5 MPa, shear strength Rt= 1.2 MPa, and ultimate strain ε = 110% (producer data).

2.1.2. Experimental Results

Six repetitions of each measurement under each load case were conducted, and the mean values of the natural frequencies corresponding to the first two modes of free vibration, as well as the mean values of the damping ratios, were estimated. The results of the experimental study were determined in the form of acceleration time histories, based on which modal characteristics were obtained. Two representative acceleration time histories, describing the behaviour of the aluminium cantilever beams (without and with polymer layer) with an additional weight of 2.5 kg are presented in Figures3a and4a, respectively. Two modes of free vibrations and the corresponding natural frequencies for each were determined using Fast Fourier analysis (see Figures3b and4b). Both natural frequencies observed during experimental study were analysed separately by filtering out the components with other frequencies from the measured acceleration time histories. The acceleration time histories of vibrations with the 1st natural frequency (2.1 Hz and 2.0 Hz, respectively) are presented in Figures3c and4c. Moreover, Figures3d and4d show the results of vibrations with the 2nd natural frequency (36.6 Hz and 31.93 Hz, respectively). The mean values of the natural frequencies calculated for both aluminium cantilever beams are also summarized in Table1. The values presented there in

(5)

Polymers 2020, 12, 2364 5 of 21

brackets indicate the frequency change ratio with respect to the first and the second natural frequency values of the specimen loaded with an additional mass of 1 kg, without the polymer layer. Moreover, comparisons of the first and the second natural frequency values are presented graphically in Figures5 and6, respectively, with respect to the presence of the polymer layer and changes in loading mass.

1 kg, without the polymer layer. Moreover, comparisons of the first and the second natural frequency values are presented graphically in Figure 5 and Figure 6, respectively, with respect to the presence of the polymer layer and changes in loading mass.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 3. Results for an aluminium cantilever beam: (a) acceleration time history; (b) Fourier Spectrum; (c) vibrations with the 1st natural frequency; (d) vibrations with the 2nd natural frequency.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 4. Results for an aluminium cantilever beam with polymer layer: (a) acceleration time history;

(b) Fourier Spectrum; (c) vibrations with the 1st natural frequency; (d) vibrations with the 2nd natural frequency.

Figure 3.Results for an aluminium cantilever beam: (a) acceleration time history; (b) Fourier Spectrum;

(c) vibrations with the 1st natural frequency; (d) vibrations with the 2nd natural frequency.

1 kg, without the polymer layer. Moreover, comparisons of the first and the second natural frequency values are presented graphically in Figure 5 and Figure 6, respectively, with respect to the presence of the polymer layer and changes in loading mass.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 3. Results for an aluminium cantilever beam: (a) acceleration time history; (b) Fourier Spectrum; (c) vibrations with the 1st natural frequency; (d) vibrations with the 2nd natural frequency.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 4. Results for an aluminium cantilever beam with polymer layer: (a) acceleration time history;

Figure 4.Results for an aluminium cantilever beam with polymer layer: (a) acceleration time history;

(6)

Polymers 2020, 12, 2364 6 of 21

Table 1.Mean values of natural frequencies, corresponding to the 1st (*) and the 2nd (**) mode of free vibrations, calculated for both aluminium cantilever beams (without and with polymer layer) under various values of vertical load—corresponding frequency change ratio in brackets.

Aluminium Beam Aluminium Beam with Polymer Layer (7 mm) Mass of Weight

(kg)

f1* (Hz)

f2**

(Hz)

f1* (Hz)

f2**

(Hz)

1 3.1 (1.00) 37.3 (1.00) 3.0 (0.97) 32.9 (0.88)

2.5 2.1 (0.68) 36.6 (0.98) 2.0 (0.64) 31.9 (0.86)

3.5 1.8 (0.58) 36.6 (0.98) 1.7 (0.55) 31.8 (0.85)

5 1.5 (0.48) 36.6 (0.98) 1.4 (0.45) 31.8 (0.85)

6 1.4 (0.45) 36.6 (0.98) 1.3 (0.42) 31.8 (0.85)

Table 1. Mean values of natural frequencies, corresponding to the 1st (*) and the 2nd (**) mode of free vibrations, calculated for both aluminium cantilever beams (without and with polymer layer) under various values of vertical load—corresponding frequency change ratio in brackets.

Aluminium Beam Aluminium Beam with Polymer Layer (7 mm) Mass of Weight

(kg)

f1

* (Hz)

f2

**

(Hz)

f1

* (Hz)

f2

**

(Hz) 1 3.1 (1.00) 37.3 (1.00) 3.0 (0.97) 32.9 (0.88) 2.5 2.1 (0.68) 36.6 (0.98) 2.0 (0.64) 31.9 (0.86) 3.5 1.8 (0.58) 36.6 (0.98) 1.7 (0.55) 31.8 (0.85) 5 1.5 (0.48) 36.6 (0.98) 1.4 (0.45) 31.8 (0.85) 6 1.4 (0.45) 36.6 (0.98) 1.3 (0.42) 31.8 (0.85)

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Comparison of first natural frequency values in relation to: (a) loading mass change; (b) presence of polymer layer.

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Comparison of second natural frequency values in relation to: (a) presence of polymer layer; (b) loading mass change.

As can be seen from Table 1, a significant decrease in the natural frequency of the aluminium cantilever beam can be observed for the first natural frequency as a result of the application of an additional vertical load in the form of weights with different mass (causing large deformations of the tested structure). The reduction reaches value up to 55% in a slightly nonlinear manner, and is strongly related to the change in the loading mass from 1 kg to 6 kg—see Figure 5a. This observation is valid for both of the analysed beams (with and without the polymer layer) and no significant differences in the frequencies were observed for both beams—see Figure 5b. On the other hand, the second natural frequency was practically insensitive to the mass change (with a reduction of up to only 2% for the plain beam and up to only 4% for the polymer bonded beam)—see Figure 6a. The results also indicate that the application of an additional polymer layer with a thickness of 7 mm led

Figure 5. Comparison of first natural frequency values in relation to: (a) loading mass change;

(b) presence of polymer layer.

Table 1. Mean values of natural frequencies, corresponding to the 1st (*) and the 2nd (**) mode of free vibrations, calculated for both aluminium cantilever beams (without and with polymer layer) under various values of vertical load—corresponding frequency change ratio in brackets.

Aluminium Beam Aluminium Beam with Polymer Layer (7 mm) Mass of Weight

(kg)

f¹

* (Hz)

f²

**

(Hz)

f¹

* (Hz)

f²

**

(Hz) 1 3.1 (1.00) 37.3 (1.00) 3.0 (0.97) 32.9 (0.88) 2.5 2.1 (0.68) 36.6 (0.98) 2.0 (0.64) 31.9 (0.86) 3.5 1.8 (0.58) 36.6 (0.98) 1.7 (0.55) 31.8 (0.85) 5 1.5 (0.48) 36.6 (0.98) 1.4 (0.45) 31.8 (0.85) 6 1.4 (0.45) 36.6 (0.98) 1.3 (0.42) 31.8 (0.85)

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Comparison of first natural frequency values in relation to: (a) loading mass change; (b) presence of polymer layer.

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Comparison of second natural frequency values in relation to: (a) presence of polymer layer; (b) loading mass change.

As can be seen from Table 1, a significant decrease in the natural frequency of the aluminium cantilever beam can be observed for the first natural frequency as a result of the application of an additional vertical load in the form of weights with different mass (causing large deformations of the tested structure). The reduction reaches value up to 55% in a slightly nonlinear manner, and is strongly related to the change in the loading mass from 1 kg to 6 kg—see Figure 5a. This observation is valid for both of the analysed beams (with and without the polymer layer) and no significant differences in the frequencies were observed for both beams—see Figure 5b. On the other hand, the second natural frequency was practically insensitive to the mass change (with a reduction of up to only 2% for the plain beam and up to only 4% for the polymer bonded beam)—see Figure 6a. The results also indicate that the application of an additional polymer layer with a thickness of 7 mm led

Figure 6.Comparison of second natural frequency values in relation to: (a) presence of polymer layer;

(b) loading mass change.

As can be seen from Table1, a significant decrease in the natural frequency of the aluminium cantilever beam can be observed for the first natural frequency as a result of the application of an additional vertical load in the form of weights with different mass (causing large deformations of the tested structure). The reduction reaches value up to 55% in a slightly nonlinear manner, and is strongly related to the change in the loading mass from 1 kg to 6 kg—see Figure5a. This observation is valid for both of the analysed beams (with and without the polymer layer) and no significant differences in the frequencies were observed for both beams—see Figure5b. On the other hand, the second natural frequency was practically insensitive to the mass change (with a reduction of up to only 2% for the plain beam and up to only 4% for the polymer bonded beam)—see Figure6a. The results also indicate that the application of an additional polymer layer with a thickness of 7 mm led to a reduction in the second natural frequency of up to 13% (independent of the increase in mass)—see Figure6b.

(7)

Polymers 2020, 12, 2364 7 of 21

In the next step of the analysis, the damping ratio was estimated for each case so as to quantify the effectiveness of polymer for reducing structural vibrations. The mean values of damping ratios for the aluminium cantilever beams (without and with the polymer layer) were separately determined for both frequencies of natural vibrations for the loaded beams. The damping ratio,ζ, was calculated according to the following formulas (see [1]):

δ

=

¹ n·

n

X

i = 1

ln aj

aj+1

! ,

ζ

=

^δ

2πn,

ζ

=

¹

2πn·





 1 n·

n

X

i = 1

ln aj

aj+1

!



 ,

where δ= logarithmic decrement; n = number of cycles; aj= amplitude of n-th cycle; a_j+1= amplitude of (n+ 1)-th cycle.

The mean values of damping ratios, estimated for the plain aluminium cantilever beam and for the beam with the polymer layer, are summarized in Table2. The values presented there in brackets indicate the change in damping ratio with respect to the damping ratios determined for the first and the second natural frequency of the specimen loaded with 1 kg additional mass and without the polymer layer. Additionally, graphical comparisons of the damping ratio values for the first and the second natural frequency are shown in Figures7and8, respectively, with respect to presence of the polymer layer and the change in loading mass.

Table 2. Mean values of damping ratios, corresponding to the 1st (*) and the 2nd (**) mode of free vibrations, calculated for aluminium cantilever beam (without and with polymer layer) under additional weights with different mass—corresponding damping change ratio in brackets.

Aluminium Beam Aluminium Beam with Polymer Layer (7 mm) Mass of Weight

(kg)

ζ₁* (%)

ζ₂**

(%)

ζ₁* (%)

ζ₂**

(%)

1 0.27 (1.00) 0.48 (1.00) 0.92 (3.41) 1.44 (3.00)

2.5 0.33 (1.22) 0.36 (0.75) 0.69 (2.55) 1.23 (2.56)

3.5 0.30 (1.11) 0.54 (1.12) 0.77 (2.85) 1.03 (2.14)

5 0.38 (1.41) 0.45 (0.94) 1.52 (5.63) 1.60 (3.33)

6 0.38 (1.41) 0.34 (0.71) 1.47 (5.44) 1.41 (2.94)

to a reduction in the second natural frequency of up to 13% (independent of the increase in mass)—see Figure 6b.

In the next step of the analysis, the damping ratio was estimated for each case so as to quantify the effectiveness of polymer for reducing structural vibrations. The mean values of damping ratios for the aluminium cantilever beams (without and with the polymer layer) were separately determined for both frequencies of natural vibrations for the loaded beams. The damping ratio, ζ, was calculated according to the following formulas (see [1]):

1 1

1

ⁿ_i

ln

^j

j

a

n ^ a_

 

          ^, 2 n

  

 ,

1 1

2 ln

n j

i j

a

n n ^ a _

  

     



 

^,

where δ = logarithmic decrement; n = number of cycles; a

^j

= amplitude of n-th cycle; a

^j+1

= amplitude of (n + 1)-th cycle.

The mean values of damping ratios, estimated for the plain aluminium cantilever beam and for the beam with the polymer layer, are summarized in Table 2. The values presented there in brackets indicate the change in damping ratio with respect to the damping ratios determined for the first and the second natural frequency of the specimen loaded with 1 kg additional mass and without the polymer layer. Additionally, graphical comparisons of the damping ratio values for the first and the second natural frequency are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, respectively, with respect to presence of the polymer layer and the change in loading mass.

Table 2. Mean values of damping ratios, corresponding to the 1st (*) and the 2nd (**) mode of free vibrations, calculated for aluminium cantilever beam (without and with polymer layer) under additional weights with different mass—corresponding damping change ratio in brackets.

Aluminium Beam Aluminium Beam with Polymer Layer (7 mm) Mass of Weight

(kg)

ζ

¹

* (%)

ζ

²

**

(%)

ζ

¹

* (%)

ζ

²

**

(%) 1 0.27 (1.00) 0.48 (1.00) 0.92 (3.41) 1.44 (3.00) 2.5 0.33 (1.22) 0.36 (0.75) 0.69 (2.55) 1.23 (2.56) 3.5 0.30 (1.11) 0.54 (1.12) 0.77 (2.85) 1.03 (2.14) 5 0.38 (1.41) 0.45 (0.94) 1.52 (5.63) 1.60 (3.33) 6 0.38 (1.41) 0.34 (0.71) 1.47 (5.44) 1.41 (2.94)

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Comparison of damping ratio values for the first natural frequency in relation to: (a) presence of polymer layer; (b) loading mass change. Figure 7.Comparison of damping ratio values for the first natural frequency in relation to: (a) presence

of polymer layer; (b) loading mass change.

(8)

Polymers 2020, 12, 2364Polymers 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 218 of 21

(a) (b)

Figure 8. Comparison of damping ratio values for the second natural frequency in relation to: (a) presence of polymer layer; (b) loading mass change.

As can be seen from Table 2, an irregular increasing trend could be observed in the damping ratio of the aluminium cantilever beams with and without polymer layer for both analysed natural frequencies due to the application of additional vertical load in the form of weights with different mass—see Figures 7a and 8a. Irregular increases and decreases were observed in all analysed cases.

The application of an additional polymer layer with a thickness of 7 mm caused a significant increase in the damping ratio for both analysed natural frequencies—see Figures 7b and 8b. The damping ratio was even increased by up to 2–4-fold for the first and the second natural frequencies, but no regularity was observed with respect to increasing mass of additional weights.

2.1.3. Discussion of Results Obtained

The results of the first experiment confirm that the application of the polymer layer causes practically no shift in the first natural frequency of the cantilever beam (see Table 1 and Figure 5b), but for the second one, a reduction of 13% was observed (Figure 6b). This fact indicates that the damping properties of a structure can only be improved in the higher frequency ranges by externally bonding a polymer layer to only one side of the structure. The nonlinearly proportional reduction in the first natural frequency with the load (mass) increase (Figure 5a) is obvious, but the lack of reaction with the change in load in the case of the second frequency (Figure 6a) could be caused by the non-proportional mass distribution (i.e., it was located at the cantilever end). However, changes in the first frequency were strongly dependent on additional mass; thus, deeper analysis of this aspect will be provided later in the interpretation section.

Moreover, the application of the polymer layer led to a visible increase in the values of the structural damping ratio of the aluminium cantilever beams (see Table 2 and Figures 7 and 8).

Damping, as well as frequency, is dependent on additional mass. This aspect must be considered in the analysis. Additionally, no clear correlation was observed between the damping ratio and the load increase, even though the values of damping ratio were, generally speaking, higher for larger values of mass in the case of the 1st natural frequency. The influence of this additional mass on damping properties is discussed later in the interpretation section.

In any case, the above comparison clearly shows that the applied polyurethane Sika PSM exhibited a significant influence on the damping properties of the beam with respect to the element when no polymer layer had been applied. The presence of the polyurethane adhesive increased the damping ratio 2–5-fold in the cases of low (1–3 Hz) and high (30–38 Hz) frequencies, when comparing cases with the same load. An open issue is the influence of the thickness of the polymer layer and the increase of the additional mass (causing an increase in the large deflection of the cantilever beam, thus generating an increase in shear strain in the polymer in the range of large deformations).

Figure 8. Comparison of damping ratio values for the second natural frequency in relation to:

(a) presence of polymer layer; (b) loading mass change.

As can be seen from Table2, an irregular increasing trend could be observed in the damping ratio of the aluminium cantilever beams with and without polymer layer for both analysed natural frequencies due to the application of additional vertical load in the form of weights with different mass—see Figures7a and8a. Irregular increases and decreases were observed in all analysed cases.

The application of an additional polymer layer with a thickness of 7 mm caused a significant increase in the damping ratio for both analysed natural frequencies—see Figures7b and8b. The damping ratio was even increased by up to 2–4-fold for the first and the second natural frequencies, but no regularity was observed with respect to increasing mass of additional weights.

2.1.3. Discussion of Results Obtained

The results of the first experiment confirm that the application of the polymer layer causes practically no shift in the first natural frequency of the cantilever beam (see Table1and Figure5b), but for the second one, a reduction of 13% was observed (Figure6b). This fact indicates that the damping properties of a structure can only be improved in the higher frequency ranges by externally bonding a polymer layer to only one side of the structure. The nonlinearly proportional reduction in the first natural frequency with the load (mass) increase (Figure5a) is obvious, but the lack of reaction with the change in load in the case of the second frequency (Figure6a) could be caused by the non-proportional mass distribution (i.e., it was located at the cantilever end). However, changes in the first frequency were strongly dependent on additional mass; thus, deeper analysis of this aspect will be provided later in the interpretation section.

Moreover, the application of the polymer layer led to a visible increase in the values of the structural damping ratio of the aluminium cantilever beams (see Table2and Figures7and8). Damping, as well as frequency, is dependent on additional mass. This aspect must be considered in the analysis.

Additionally, no clear correlation was observed between the damping ratio and the load increase, even though the values of damping ratio were, generally speaking, higher for larger values of mass in the case of the 1st natural frequency. The influence of this additional mass on damping properties is discussed later in the interpretation section.

In any case, the above comparison clearly shows that the applied polyurethane Sika PSM exhibited a significant influence on the damping properties of the beam with respect to the element when no polymer layer had been applied. The presence of the polyurethane adhesive increased the damping ratio 2–5-fold in the cases of low (1–3 Hz) and high (30–38 Hz) frequencies, when comparing cases with the same load. An open issue is the influence of the thickness of the polymer layer and the increase of the additional mass (causing an increase in the large deflection of the cantilever beam, thus generating an increase in shear strain in the polymer in the range of large deformations).

(9)

Polymers 2020, 12, 2364 9 of 21

2.2. Experimental Study—Part 2 2.2.1. Experimental Setup

In the next stage of the experimental study, composite cantilever beams consisting of two aluminium flat bars with a total length of 1250 mm, a thickness of 9 mm, and a width of 30 mm, bonded together for a length of 992 mm with polymer adhesive of different thicknesses (0.5 mm, 1.2 mm, 1.75 mm, 3.1 mm and 5 mm) were analysed—see Figure9. The investigation was conducted so as to verify the effectiveness of the application of polymer adhesive for the reduction of vibrations in the aluminium cantilever beam when the polymer layer is constrained on both sides by structural elements.

For this purpose, dynamic parameters such as the modes of free vibrations and the corresponding natural frequencies were determined. Similar to the case of the previous tests, the aluminium cantilever beams were induced to vibrate through impacts with a modal hammer applied at the middle of the elements’ length. The total time of each measurement was also equal to 12.5 s. The tests included measurements carried out for beams with additional vertical loads applied at their ends in the form of weights with a mass of 1 kg, 2.5 kg, 3.5 kg, 5 kg and 6 kg. The material properties of the aluminium and polymer adhesive used during the experimental study are described in Section2.1.

2.2.1. Experimental Setup

In the next stage of the experimental study, composite cantilever beams consisting of two aluminium flat bars with a total length of 1250 mm, a thickness of 9 mm, and a width of 30 mm, bonded together for a length of 992 mm with polymer adhesive of different thicknesses (0.5 mm, 1.2 mm, 1.75 mm, 3.1 mm and 5 mm) were analysed—see Figure 9. The investigation was conducted so as to verify the effectiveness of the application of polymer adhesive for the reduction of vibrations in the aluminium cantilever beam when the polymer layer is constrained on both sides by structural elements. For this purpose, dynamic parameters such as the modes of free vibrations and the corresponding natural frequencies were determined. Similar to the case of the previous tests, the aluminium cantilever beams were induced to vibrate through impacts with a modal hammer applied at the middle of the elements’ length. The total time of each measurement was also equal to 12.5 s. The tests included measurements carried out for beams with additional vertical loads applied at their ends in the form of weights with a mass of 1 kg, 2.5 kg, 3.5 kg, 5 kg and 6 kg. The material properties of the aluminium and polymer adhesive used during the experimental study are described in Section 2.1.

Figure 9. Aluminium cantilevered composite beam.

Six repetitions were carried out for each measurement under each load. The results of the experimental study were determined in the form of acceleration time histories, based on which the modal characteristics, including mean values of natural frequencies corresponding to the first two modes of free vibrations and the mean values of damping ratios, were determined. Five representative acceleration time histories describing the behaviour of a composite aluminium cantilever beam (with polymer adhesive with thicknesses of 0.5 mm, 1.2 mm, 1.75 mm, 3.1 mm and 5 mm) with an additional weight of 1 kg are presented in Figures 10a–14a. Two modes of free vibrations and corresponding natural frequencies for each case were determined by conducing Fast Fourier analysis (see Figures 10b–14b). Both natural frequencies observed during experimental study were analysed separately by filtering out the components with other frequencies from the measured acceleration time histories. The acceleration time histories of the vibrations with the 1st natural frequency are presented in Figures 10c–14c. In Figures 10d–14d, the results of the vibrations with the 2nd natural frequency are shown.

(a) (b) Figure 9.Aluminium cantilevered composite beam.

Six repetitions were carried out for each measurement under each load. The results of the experimental study were determined in the form of acceleration time histories, based on which the modal characteristics, including mean values of natural frequencies corresponding to the first two modes of free vibrations and the mean values of damping ratios, were determined. Five representative acceleration time histories describing the behaviour of a composite aluminium cantilever beam (with polymer adhesive with thicknesses of 0.5 mm, 1.2 mm, 1.75 mm, 3.1 mm and 5 mm) with an additional weight of 1 kg are presented in Figures10a,11a, 12a, 13a and14a. Two modes of free vibrations and corresponding natural frequencies for each case were determined by conducing Fast Fourier analysis (see Figures10b,11b,12b,13b and14b). Both natural frequencies observed during experimental study were analysed separately by filtering out the components with other frequencies from the measured acceleration time histories. The acceleration time histories of the vibrations with the 1st natural frequency are presented in Figures10c,11c,12c,13c and14c. In Figures10d,11d,12d, 13d and14d, the results of the vibrations with the 2nd natural frequency are shown.

2.2.1. Experimental Setup

In the next stage of the experimental study, composite cantilever beams consisting of two aluminium flat bars with a total length of 1250 mm, a thickness of 9 mm, and a width of 30 mm, bonded together for a length of 992 mm with polymer adhesive of different thicknesses (0.5 mm, 1.2 mm, 1.75 mm, 3.1 mm and 5 mm) were analysed—see Figure 9. The investigation was conducted so as to verify the effectiveness of the application of polymer adhesive for the reduction of vibrations in the aluminium cantilever beam when the polymer layer is constrained on both sides by structural elements. For this purpose, dynamic parameters such as the modes of free vibrations and the corresponding natural frequencies were determined. Similar to the case of the previous tests, the aluminium cantilever beams were induced to vibrate through impacts with a modal hammer applied at the middle of the elements’ length. The total time of each measurement was also equal to 12.5 s. The tests included measurements carried out for beams with additional vertical loads applied at their ends in the form of weights with a mass of 1 kg, 2.5 kg, 3.5 kg, 5 kg and 6 kg. The material properties of the aluminium and polymer adhesive used during the experimental study are described in Section 2.1.

Figure 9. Aluminium cantilevered composite beam.

2.2.2. Experimental Results

Six repetitions were carried out for each measurement under each load. The results of the experimental study were determined in the form of acceleration time histories, based on which the modal characteristics, including mean values of natural frequencies corresponding to the first two modes of free vibrations and the mean values of damping ratios, were determined. Five representative acceleration time histories describing the behaviour of a composite aluminium cantilever beam (with polymer adhesive with thicknesses of 0.5 mm, 1.2 mm, 1.75 mm, 3.1 mm and 5 mm) with an additional weight of 1 kg are presented in Figures 10a–14a. Two modes of free vibrations and corresponding natural frequencies for each case were determined by conducing Fast Fourier analysis (see Figures 10b–14b). Both natural frequencies observed during experimental study were analysed separately by filtering out the components with other frequencies from the measured acceleration time histories. The acceleration time histories of the vibrations with the 1st natural frequency are presented in Figures 10c–14c. In Figures 10d–14d, the results of the vibrations with the 2nd natural frequency are shown.

(a) (b)

Figure 10. Cont.

(10)

Polymers 2020, 12, 2364 10 of 21

(c) (d)

Figure 10. Results for a composite aluminium cantilever beam with 0.5 mm thick polymer adhesive:

(a) acceleration time history; (b) Fourier Spectrum; (c) vibrations with the 1st natural frequency; (d) vibrations with the 2nd natural frequency.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(a) (b)

Figure 10.Results for a composite aluminium cantilever beam with 0.5 mm thick polymer adhesive:

(a) acceleration time history; (b) Fourier Spectrum; (c) vibrations with the 1st natural frequency;

(d) vibrations with the 2nd natural frequency.

(c) (d)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(a) (b)

(11)

Polymers 2020, 12, 2364 11 of 21

(c) (d)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(a) (b)

(12)

Polymers 2020, 12, 2364 12 of 21

(c) (d)

Figure 14. Results for a composite aluminium cantilever beam with 5 mm thick polymer adhesive: (a) acceleration time history; (b) Fourier Spectrum; (c) vibrations with the 1st natural frequency; (d) vibrations with the 2nd natural frequency.

The mean values of the natural frequencies determined for the composite aluminium cantilever beams are summarized in Table 3. The comparison of the first and second natural frequency values with respect to the presence of the polymer layer and change in loading mass change estimated for the beams is presented graphically in Figure 15 and Figure 16, respectively.

Table 3. Mean values of natural frequencies corresponding to the first two modes of free vibration calculated for composite aluminium cantilever beams (with different polymer adhesive thicknesses) under additional weights of different mass.

Aluminium Beam with Polymer Adhesive Mass of Weight

(kg)

0.5 mm 1.2 mm 1.75 mm 3.1 mm 5 mm

f¹

*

(Hz)

f²

**

(Hz)

f¹

* (Hz)

f²

**

(Hz)

f¹

* (Hz)

f²

**

(Hz)

f¹

* (Hz)

f²

**

(Hz)

f¹

* (Hz)

f²

**

(Hz) 0 7.7 40.1 8.3 39.9 8.2 38.3 8.0 35.9 7.5 34.1 1 5.3 40.2 5.6 40.1 5.6 38.5 5.3 36.0 5.1 34.2 2.5 4.0 41.6 4.3 40.7 4.3 39.2 4.2 37.7 4.0 30.6 3.5 3.5 38.4 3.7 41.4 3.7 40.2 3.7 33.5 3.5 31.9 5 3.1 38.6 3.2 37.8 3.3 36.1 3.2 35.0 3.1 32.5 6 2.8 38.6 3.0 38.3 3.0 36.2 3.0 35.6 2.8 32.1

(a) (b)

Figure 15. Comparison of first natural frequency values in relation to: (a) polymer adhesive thickness; (b) loading mass change.

Figure 14. Results for a composite aluminium cantilever beam with 5 mm thick polymer adhesive:

The mean values of the natural frequencies determined for the composite aluminium cantilever beams are summarized in Table3. The comparison of the first and second natural frequency values with respect to the presence of the polymer layer and change in loading mass change estimated for the beams is presented graphically in Figures15and16, respectively.

Table 3. Mean values of natural frequencies corresponding to the first two modes of free vibration calculated for composite aluminium cantilever beams (with different polymer adhesive thicknesses) under additional weights of different mass.

Aluminium Beam with Polymer Adhesive Mass of

Weight (kg)

0.5 mm 1.2 mm 1.75 mm 3.1 mm 5 mm

f₁* (Hz)

f₂**

(Hz)

f₁* (Hz)

f₂**

(Hz)

f₁* (Hz)

f₂**

(Hz)

f₁* (Hz)

f₂**

(Hz)

f₁* (Hz)

f₂**

(Hz)

0 7.7 40.1 8.3 39.9 8.2 38.3 8.0 35.9 7.5 34.1

1 5.3 40.2 5.6 40.1 5.6 38.5 5.3 36.0 5.1 34.2

2.5 4.0 41.6 4.3 40.7 4.3 39.2 4.2 37.7 4.0 30.6

3.5 3.5 38.4 3.7 41.4 3.7 40.2 3.7 33.5 3.5 31.9

5 3.1 38.6 3.2 37.8 3.3 36.1 3.2 35.0 3.1 32.5

6 2.8 38.6 3.0 38.3 3.0 36.2 3.0 35.6 2.8 32.1

* in relation to the 1st mode of free vibration. ** in relation to the 2nd mode of free vibration.

(c) (d)

Figure 14. Results for a composite aluminium cantilever beam with 5 mm thick polymer adhesive: (a) acceleration time history; (b) Fourier Spectrum; (c) vibrations with the 1st natural frequency; (d) vibrations with the 2nd natural frequency.

The mean values of the natural frequencies determined for the composite aluminium cantilever beams are summarized in Table 3. The comparison of the first and second natural frequency values with respect to the presence of the polymer layer and change in loading mass change estimated for the beams is presented graphically in Figure 15 and Figure 16, respectively.

Table 3. Mean values of natural frequencies corresponding to the first two modes of free vibration calculated for composite aluminium cantilever beams (with different polymer adhesive thicknesses) under additional weights of different mass.

Aluminium Beam with Polymer Adhesive Mass of Weight

(kg)

0.5 mm 1.2 mm 1.75 mm 3.1 mm 5 mm

f1

*

(Hz)

f2

**

(Hz)

f1

* (Hz)

f2

**

(Hz)

f1

* (Hz)

f2

**

(Hz)

f1

* (Hz)

f2

**

(Hz)

f1

* (Hz)

f2

**

(Hz) 0 7.7 40.1 8.3 39.9 8.2 38.3 8.0 35.9 7.5 34.1 1 5.3 40.2 5.6 40.1 5.6 38.5 5.3 36.0 5.1 34.2 2.5 4.0 41.6 4.3 40.7 4.3 39.2 4.2 37.7 4.0 30.6 3.5 3.5 38.4 3.7 41.4 3.7 40.2 3.7 33.5 3.5 31.9 5 3.1 38.6 3.2 37.8 3.3 36.1 3.2 35.0 3.1 32.5 6 2.8 38.6 3.0 38.3 3.0 36.2 3.0 35.6 2.8 32.1

(a) (b)

Figure 15. Comparison of first natural frequency values in relation to: (a) polymer adhesive thickness; (b) loading mass change.

Figure 15.Comparison of first natural frequency values in relation to: (a) polymer adhesive thickness;

(b) loading mass change.

(13)

Polymers 2020, 12, 2364 13 of 21

(a) (b)

Figure 16. Comparison of second natural frequency values in relation to: (a) polymer adhesive thickness; (b) loading mass change.

As can be seen from Table 3, a significant decrease in the natural frequency of the aluminium cantilever beam can be observed for the first natural frequency, due to the application of an additional vertical load, as was observed in part 1 of the experimental study. The reduction of nonlinear behaviour reaches 64%, and this is strongly related to the change in the loading mass from 1 kg to 6 kg—see Figure 15a. This observation is valid for all of the analysed beams (with polymer layers of different thickness). Small differences in frequencies were observed for the beams with changing layer thickness—see Figure 15b. The second natural frequency was slightly dependent on the mass change (with up to a 6% reduction for the beams with the maximum additional mass)—see Figure 16a. The change in polymer layer thickness did not exhibit a clear relationship with the changes in the second natural frequency—see Figure 16b.

The mean values of the damping ratios with respect to the natural frequencies determined (as previously) for the composite aluminium cantilever beams are summarized in Table 4. The comparison of the damping ratio values for the first and second natural frequency with respect to the presence of the polymer layer and the change in loading mass estimated for the beams is presented graphically in Figure 17 and Figure 18, respectively.

Table 4. Mean values of damping ratios, corresponding to the first (*) and the second (**) mode of free vibrations for composite aluminium cantilever beams (with different polymer adhesive thicknesses) under additional weights with differing mass.

Aluminium Beam with Polymer Adhesive Mass of Weight

(kg)

0.5 mm 1.2 mm 1.75 mm 3.1 mm 5 mm ζ

¹

*

(%) ζ

²

**

(%) ζ

¹

* (%)

ζ

²

**

(%) ζ

¹

* (%)

ζ

²

**

(%) ζ

¹

* (%)

ζ

²

**

(%) ζ

¹

* (%)

ζ

²

**

(%) 0 0.66 1.37 0.72 1.29 0.98 1.30 1.31 1.11 1.01 1.01 1 0.78 1.43 0.93 1.27 1.06 1.39 1.22 1.28 1.29 1.06 2.5 0.45 2.39 0.75 1.78 0.89 1.41 1.07 2.45 1.31 2.27 3.5 0.60 1.98 0.84 2.97 0.94 2.77 1.09 2.11 1.31 1.68 5 0.50 1.52 0.80 2.80 0.88 2.65 1.23 2.03 1.65 1.48 6 0.55 1.36 0.97 2.23 0.92 1.91 1.29 1.62 1.49 1.17

Figure 16. Comparison of second natural frequency values in relation to: (a) polymer adhesive thickness; (b) loading mass change.

As can be seen from Table3, a significant decrease in the natural frequency of the aluminium cantilever beam can be observed for the first natural frequency, due to the application of an additional vertical load, as was observed in part 1 of the experimental study. The reduction of nonlinear behaviour reaches 64%, and this is strongly related to the change in the loading mass from 1 kg to 6 kg—see Figure15a. This observation is valid for all of the analysed beams (with polymer layers of different thickness). Small differences in frequencies were observed for the beams with changing layer thickness—see Figure15b. The second natural frequency was slightly dependent on the mass change (with up to a 6% reduction for the beams with the maximum additional mass)—see Figure16a.

The change in polymer layer thickness did not exhibit a clear relationship with the changes in the second natural frequency—see Figure16b.

The mean values of the damping ratios with respect to the natural frequencies determined (as previously) for the composite aluminium cantilever beams are summarized in Table 4.

The comparison of the damping ratio values for the first and second natural frequency with respect to the presence of the polymer layer and the change in loading mass estimated for the beams is presented graphically in Figures17and18, respectively.

As can be seen from Table4, a small, almost regular increasing trend (up to 1.5%) could be observed in the damping ratio of the analysed aluminium cantilever beams for the first natural frequency as a result of the changes in polymer layer thickness—see Figure17a. Irregular increases and decreases were observed as a result of additional mass changes—see Figure17b. The damping ratio determined for the second natural frequency was strongly irregular, and no clear relation could be observed with the increase in mass of the additional weights and the changes in the thickness of the polymer layer—see Figure18.

Table 4.Mean values of damping ratios, corresponding to the first (*) and the second (**) mode of free vibrations for composite aluminium cantilever beams (with different polymer adhesive thicknesses) under additional weights with differing mass.

Aluminium Beam with Polymer Adhesive Mass of

Weight (kg)

0.5 mm 1.2 mm 1.75 mm 3.1 mm 5 mm

ζ₁* (%)

ζ₂**

(%)

ζ₁* (%)

ζ₂**

(%)

ζ₁* (%)

ζ₂**

(%)

ζ₁* (%)

ζ₂**

(%)

ζ₁* (%)

ζ₂**

(%)

0 0.66 1.37 0.72 1.29 0.98 1.30 1.31 1.11 1.01 1.01

1 0.78 1.43 0.93 1.27 1.06 1.39 1.22 1.28 1.29 1.06

2.5 0.45 2.39 0.75 1.78 0.89 1.41 1.07 2.45 1.31 2.27

3.5 0.60 1.98 0.84 2.97 0.94 2.77 1.09 2.11 1.31 1.68

5 0.50 1.52 0.80 2.80 0.88 2.65 1.23 2.03 1.65 1.48

6 0.55 1.36 0.97 2.23 0.92 1.91 1.29 1.62 1.49 1.17

Experimental Study on the Effectiveness of Polyurethane Flexible Adhesive in Reduction of Structural Vibrations

polymers